DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
1. Amendments filed 2/17/2026 have been entered, wherein claims 1-19 are pending. Accordingly, claims 1-19 have been examined herein. The previous claim objections and 35 USC 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments. This action is Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10-11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, regarding claim 10, the disclosure does not provide support for the added limitation of “control the radial distance of the imager relative to the center of the platen based on the image and the other data”. That is, the disclosure does not provide support for controlling the radial distance “based on the image and the other data”. Claims 11 and 19 are rejected for depending upon a rejected base claim.
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-3 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the language recites the term “wherein the parameter”. However, it is not clear if the recitation of “the parameter” is intended to reference the first “parameter” introduced in the independent claim or the second “operational polishing parameter” introduced in the independent claim. Overall, the term “the parameter” lacks proper antecedent basis. For purposes of examination, the language will be interpreted as referencing the first “parameter” introduced in the independent claim. The examiner recommends amending the independent claim to distinguish between a “first parameter” and a ”second operational polishing parameter”.
Regarding claim 3, the language recites the term “wherein the parameter”. However, it is not clear if the recitation of “the parameter” is intended to reference the first “parameter” introduced in the independent claim or the second “operational polishing parameter” introduced in the independent claim. Overall, the term “the parameter” lacks proper antecedent basis. For purposes of examination, the language will be interpreted as referencing the first “parameter” introduced in the independent claim. The examiner recommends amending the independent claim to distinguish between a “first parameter” and a ”second operational polishing parameter”.
Regarding claim 13, the language recites the term “wherein the parameter”. However, it is not clear if the recitation of “the parameter” is intended to reference the first “parameter” introduced in the independent claim or the second “operational polishing parameter” introduced in the independent claim. Overall, the term “the parameter” lacks proper antecedent basis. For purposes of examination, the language will be interpreted as referencing the first “parameter” introduced in the independent claim. The examiner recommends amending the independent claim to distinguish between a “first parameter” and a ”second operational polishing parameter”.
Regarding claim 14, the language recites the term “wherein the parameter”. However, it is not clear if the recitation of “the parameter” is intended to reference the first “parameter” introduced in the independent claim or the second “operational polishing parameter” introduced in the independent claim. Overall, the term “the parameter” lacks proper antecedent basis. For purposes of examination, the language will be interpreted as referencing the first “parameter” introduced in the independent claim. The examiner recommends amending the independent claim to distinguish between a “first parameter” and a ”second operational polishing parameter”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In accordance with MPEP 2106.04, each of Claims 1-9 and 12-18 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Claim 1
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Claim 1 recites configured to receive the image from the in-situ polishing pad monitoring system, receive other data from a device that is not the in-situ polishing pad monitoring system, the other data including a value for a parameter, generate a measurement of polishing pad surface texture based on the image and the value of the parameter, and using the measurement of the polishing pad surface texture, adjust an operational polishing parameter which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The claimed limitations involve observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, Claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites an apparatus for chemical mechanical polishing, comprising:
a platen having a surface to support a polishing pad;
a carrier head to hold a substrate against a polishing surface of the polishing pad;
a pad conditioner to press an abrasive body against the polishing surface;
an in-situ polishing pad monitoring system including an imager disposed above the platen to capture an image of the polishing pad; and
a controller configured to receive the image from the in-situ polishing pad monitoring system, receive other data from a device that is not the in-situ polishing pad monitoring system, the other data including a value for a parameter, generate a measurement of polishing pad surface texture based on the image and the value of the parameter, and using the measurement of the polishing pad surface texture, adjust an operational polishing parameter (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), See page 9 of the instant specification, wherein receiving the image, receiving other data and generating a measure is performed, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.).
Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d)
The above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d). The additional limitation of a platen having a surface to support a polishing pad;
a carrier head to hold a substrate against a polishing surface of the polishing pad;
a pad conditioner to press an abrasive body against the polishing surface;
an in-situ polishing pad monitoring system including an imager disposed above the platen to capture an image of the polishing pad generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Thus, it is not considered a practical application.
The above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d). The additional limitations of “a controller” is performing a mental process on a generic computer. The further limitations of the claim are merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept(MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). Thus, it is not considered a practical application.
Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05. The additional limitation of
a platen having a surface to support a polishing pad;
a carrier head to hold a substrate against a polishing surface of the polishing pad;
a pad conditioner to press an abrasive body against the polishing surface;
an in-situ polishing pad monitoring system including an imager disposed above the platen to capture an image of the polishing pad generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and is well understood, routine and conventional, as shown by Lee (US PGPUB 20070184759), who teaches a conventional apparatus for performing the CMP process (hereinafter, referred to as "CMP apparatus") includes a polishing pad, a platen for supporting the polishing pad, a polishing head to which a wafer is secured, a slurry reservoir from which the slurry is supplied to the polishing pad, and a pad conditioner for improving the quality of the polishing pad. The wafer is rotated on a central axis of the polishing head, and the polishing pad makes contact with the rotating wafer, so that a thin layer present on the wafer is polished by the chemical reaction and mechanical friction between the thin layer on the wafer and the polishing pad [0006] and as shown by Saito et al. (JP 2006035328), who teaches conventionally, in order to cope with such a phenomenon, a camera or the like that acquires an image of the upper surface of the polishing pad is provided above the polishing pad (page 2 of the attached translation, second paragraph). Thus, it is not considered significantly more.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05. As shown above, the additional limitation of a controller is performing a mental process on a generic computer. The further limitations of the claim are merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept(MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). Thus, it is not considered significantly more.
Claim 2
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Regarding claim 2, the analysis of Claim 1 is incorporated. Claim 2 additionally recites wherein the parameter comprises a polishing control parameter or a state parameter, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The claimed limitations involve observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, Claim 2 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 2 recites the invention of claim 1, and further recites wherein the parameter comprises a polishing control parameter or a state parameter, (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), See page 9 of the instant specification, wherein receiving the image, receiving other data and generating a measure is performed, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.).
Claim 3
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Regarding claim 3, the analysis of Claim 2 is incorporated. Claim 3 additionally recites herein the parameter comprises a platen rotation rate, a slurry dispense rate, a slurry composition, a number of substrates since the polishing pad was changed, or a measurement of the polishing pad surface texture of the polishing pad by a stand-alone metrology station before the polishing pad was installed on the platen, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The claimed limitations involve observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, Claim 3 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 3 recites the invention of claim 2, and further recites herein the parameter comprises a platen rotation rate, a slurry dispense rate, a slurry composition, a number of substrates since the polishing pad was changed, or a measurement of the polishing pad surface texture of the polishing pad by a stand-alone metrology station before the polishing pad was installed on the platen, (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), See page 9 of the instant specification, wherein receiving the image, receiving other data and generating a measure is performed, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.).
Claim 4
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Regarding claim 4, the analysis of Claim 1 is incorporated. Claim 4 additionally recites wherein the controller is configured to at least one of halt a conditioning process or adjust a conditioning parameter based on the measurement of polishing pad surface texture, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The claimed limitations involve observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, Claim 4 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 4 recites the invention of claim 1, and further recites wherein the controller is configured to at least one of halt a conditioning process or adjust a conditioning parameter based on the measurement of polishing pad surface texture, (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), See page 3 of the instant specification, wherein the adjusting a conditioning parameter is performed, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper. Specifically, the language does not require any action to be taken after the adjustment).
Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d)
The above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d). The additional limitations of “controller” is performing a mental process on a generic computer. The further limitations of the claim are merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept(MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). Thus, it is not considered a practical application.
Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05
Claim 4 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05. As shown above, the additional limitation of a controller is performing a mental process on a generic computer. The further limitations of the claim are merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept(MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). Thus, it is not considered significantly more.
Claim 5
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Regarding claim 5, the analysis of Claim 1 is incorporated. Claim 5 additionally recites wherein the controller is configured to operate as a machine learning based image processing system, and to input the image to the machine learning based image processing system, which are grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The claimed limitations involve observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations which is grouped as a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Accordingly, Claim 5 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 5 recites the invention of claim 1, and further recites wherein the controller is configured to operate as a machine learning based image processing system, and to input the image to the machine learning based image processing system, (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations which is grouped as a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), See FIG. 3 of instant application where the machine learning system is described, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.).
Claim 6
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Regarding claim 6, the analysis of Claim 5 is incorporated. Claim 6 additionally recites wherein the machine learning based image processing system comprises a supervised learning module, which are grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The claimed limitations involve observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations which is grouped as a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Accordingly, Claim 6 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 6 recites the invention of claim 5, and further recites wherein the machine learning based image processing system comprises a supervised learning module, (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations which is grouped as a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), See FIG. 3 of instant application where the machine learning system is described, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.).
Claim 7
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Regarding claim 7, the analysis of Claim 6 is incorporated. Claim 7 additionally recites wherein the machine learning based image processing system comprises a dimensional reduction module to receive the image and output component values, and wherein the controller is configured to input the component values to the supervised learning module, which are grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The claimed limitations involve observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations which is grouped as a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Accordingly, Claim 7 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 7 recites the invention of claim 6, and further recites wherein the machine learning based image processing system comprises a dimensional reduction module to receive the image and output component values, and wherein the controller is configured to input the component values to the supervised learning module, (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations which is grouped as a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), See FIG. 3 of instant application where the machine learning system is described, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.).
Claim 8
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Regarding claim 8, the analysis of Claim 6 is incorporated. Claim 8 additionally recites wherein the controller is configured to input the image directly to the supervised learning module, which are grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The claimed limitations involve observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations which is grouped as a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Accordingly, Claim 8 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 8 recites the invention of claim 6, and further recites wherein the controller is configured to input the image directly to the supervised learning module, (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations which is grouped as a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), See FIG. 3 of instant application where the machine learning system is described, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.).
Claim 9
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Regarding claim 9, the analysis of Claim 6 is incorporated. Claim 9 additionally recites wherein the controller is configured to operate the supervised learning module as an artificial neural network, which are grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The claimed limitations involve observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations which is grouped as a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Accordingly, Claim 9 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 9 recites the invention of claim 6, and further recites wherein the controller is configured to operate the supervised learning module as an artificial neural network, (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations which is grouped as a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), See FIG. 3 of instant application where the machine learning system is described, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.).
Claim 10
Although 10 includes at least one mental process of receive the image and receive other data, the claims recite at least one additional element of controlling the radial distance based on the image and the other data which provides a practical application and significantly more because the actions are based on the received image and data.
Claim 12
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Claim 12 recites receiving other data from a device that is not the optical sensor, the other data including a value for a parameter; and
generating a measurement of surface texture of the polishing pad by inputting the image and the value of the parameter to a machine learning based image processing system; and using the measurement of the surface texture of the polishing pad, adjust an operational parameter which are grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The claimed limitations involve observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations which is grouped as a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Accordingly, Claim 12 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 12 recites a method of polishing, comprising:
bringing a substrate into contact with a polishing pad on a platen;
generating relative motion between the substrate and the polishing pad;
capturing an image of the polishing pad with an optical sensor;
receiving other data from a device that is not the optical sensor, the other data including a value for a parameter; and generating a measurement of surface texture of the polishing pad by inputting the image and the value of the parameter to a machine learning based image processing system; and using the measurement of the surface texture of the polishing pad, adjust an operational polishing parameter, (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations which is grouped as a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), See FIG. 3 of instant application where the machine learning system is described and page 9 of the instant specification, wherein receiving data and generating a measurement are performed, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.).
Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d)
The above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d). The additional limitation of bringing a substrate into contact with a polishing pad on a platen;
generating relative motion between the substrate and the polishing pad;
capturing an image of the polishing pad with an optical sensor generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Thus, it is not considered a practical application.
Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05
Claim 12 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05. The additional limitation of
bringing a substrate into contact with a polishing pad on a platen;
generating relative motion between the substrate and the polishing pad;
capturing an image of the polishing pad with an optical sensor generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and is well understood, routine and conventional, as shown by Lee (US PGPUB 20070184759), who teaches a conventional apparatus for performing the CMP process (hereinafter, referred to as "CMP apparatus") includes a polishing pad, a platen for supporting the polishing pad, a polishing head to which a wafer is secured, a slurry reservoir from which the slurry is supplied to the polishing pad, and a pad conditioner for improving the quality of the polishing pad. The wafer is rotated on a central axis of the polishing head, and the polishing pad makes contact with the rotating wafer, so that a thin layer present on the wafer is polished by the chemical reaction and mechanical friction between the thin layer on the wafer and the polishing pad [0006] and as shown by Saito et al. (JP 2006035328), who teaches conventionally, in order to cope with such a phenomenon, a camera or the like that acquires an image of the upper surface of the polishing pad is provided above the polishing pad (page 2 of the attached translation, second paragraph). Thus, it is not considered significantly more.
Claim 13
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Regarding claim 13, the analysis of Claim 12 is incorporated. Claim 13 additionally recites wherein the parameter comprises a polishing control parameter or a state parameter, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The claimed limitations involve observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, Claim 13 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 13 recites the invention of claim 12, and further recites wherein the parameter comprises a polishing control parameter or a state parameter, (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), See page 9 of the instant specification, wherein receiving the image, receiving other data and generating a measure is performed, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.).
Claim 14
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Regarding claim 14, the analysis of Claim 12 is incorporated. Claim 14 additionally recites herein the parameter comprises a platen rotation rate, a slurry dispense rate, a slurry composition, a number of substrates since the polishing pad was changed, or a measurement of the surface texture of the polishing pad by a stand-alone metrology station before the polishing pad was installed on the platen, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The claimed limitations involve observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, Claim 14 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 14 recites the invention of claim 12, and further recites wherein the parameter comprises a platen rotation rate, a slurry dispense rate, a slurry composition, a number of substrates since the polishing pad was changed, or a measurement of the surface texture of the polishing pad by a stand-alone metrology station before the polishing pad was installed on the platen, (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), See page 9 of the instant specification, wherein receiving the image, receiving other data and generating a measure is performed, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.).
Claim 15
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Regarding claim 15, the analysis of Claim 12 is incorporated. Claim 15 additionally recites comprising receiving training data including a plurality of pairs of training images and training values, and training a supervised learning algorithm in the machine learning based image processing system using the training data, which are grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The claimed limitations involve observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations which is grouped as a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Accordingly, Claim 15 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 15 recites the invention of claim 12, and further recites comprising receiving training data including a plurality of pairs of training images and training values, and training a supervised learning algorithm in the machine learning based image processing system using the training data, (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations which is grouped as a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), See FIG. 3 of instant application where the machine learning system is described, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.).
Claim 16
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Regarding claim 16, the analysis of Claim 15 is incorporated. Claim 16 additionally recites wherein the training values comprise surface texture values, which are grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The claimed limitations involve observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations which is grouped as a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Accordingly, Claim 16 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 16 recites the invention of claim 15, and further recites wherein the training values comprise surface texture values, (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations which is grouped as a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), See FIG. 3 of instant application where the machine learning system is described, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.).
Claim 17
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Regarding claim 17, the analysis of Claim 16 is incorporated. Claim 17 additionally recites wherein the training values comprise surface roughness values, which are grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The claimed limitations involve observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations which is grouped as a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Accordingly, Claim 17 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 17 recites the invention of claim 16, and further recites wherein the training values comprise surface roughness values, (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations which is grouped as a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), See FIG. 3 of instant application where the machine learning system is described, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.).
Claim 18
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Regarding claim 18, the analysis of Claim 12 is incorporated. Claim 18 additionally recites comprising halting a conditioning process or adjusting a conditioning parameter based on the measurement of polishing pad surface texture, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The claimed limitations involve observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, Claim 18 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 18 recites the invention of claim 12, and further recites comprising halting a conditioning process or adjusting a conditioning parameter based on the measurement of polishing pad surface texture, (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), See page 3 of the instant specification, wherein the adjusting a conditioning parameter is performed, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper. Specifically, the language does not require any action to be taken after the adjustment).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-9 and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo et al. (US PGPUB 20140262027), hereinafter Matsuo, in view of Singh et al. (US Patent 6594024), hereinafter Singh.
Regarding claim 1, Matsuo teaches an apparatus for chemical mechanical polishing (fig. 1), comprising:
a platen having a surface to support a polishing pad (fig. 1, platen 1 and polishing pad 2; see annotated fig. 1 below);
PNG
media_image1.png
498
1019
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a carrier head to hold a substrate against a polishing surface of the polishing pad (fig. 1, carrier 10 and substrate W; see annotated fig. 1 above);
a pad conditioner to press an abrasive body against the polishing surface (fig. 1, dresser 22 with dressing member 22a);
an in-situ polishing pad monitoring system including an imager (photodetector 35) disposed above the platen (fig. 1) to capture an image of the polishing pad (figs. 1-3, [0052]); and
a controller [0050] configured to
receive the image from the in-situ polishing pad monitoring system [0050],
receive other data, the other data including a value for a parameter (paragraph 0048, the controller receives other data relating to processing parameters),
generate a measurement of polishing pad surface texture based on the image and the value of the parameter (fig. 12A; the controller determines a pad surface index [0056] (which is interpreted as generating a measure of polishing pad surface texture) which is based on the image from the photodetector 35 and also indirectly based on the processing parameters received by the controller. That is, the processing parameters affect the pad surface index, wherein Matsuo teaches adjusting the processing parameters according to the pad surface index (fig. 12A)), and
using the measurement of the polishing pad surface texture, adjust an operational polishing parameter (fig. 12A, [0122]; wherein the change of dressing conditions is interpreted as adjusting an operational polishing parameter).
Matsuo does not explicitly teach receive other data from a device that is not the in-situ polishing pad monitoring system. Specifically, Matuso does not explicitly teach how the controller controls the rotational speed of the polishing table (as described in paragraph 0048).
However, Singh teaches monitoring a CMP process, wherein the monitoring system is operatively coupled to a controller which regulates the system selectively control a CMP device including a polishing pad. Additionally, Singh teaches sensors are included to detect parameters including the polishing speed (col. 12, lines 23-25).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Matsuo to incorporate the teachings of Singh to provide wherein the controller receives other data from a device that is not the in-situ polishing pad monitoring system. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate a sensor (as taught by Singh) for monitoring the rotational speed of the polishing table (as taught by Matsuo, [0048]), wherein the controller controls the parameter based on the sensor information. Doing so would allow Matsuo to function as intended and control the rotational speed of the polishing table [0048 of Matsuo], wherein incorporating the sensor provides means for the controller to monitor the rotational speed of the polishing table.
Regarding claim 2, Matsuo, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Matsuo, as modified, teaches wherein the parameter comprises a polishing control parameter [0048 of Matsuo, rotational speed of the polishing table] or a state parameter (the prior art is not required to teach this limitation because the language recites the term “or”).
Regarding claim 3, Matsuo, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 2. Additionally, Matsuo, as modified, teaches wherein the parameter comprises a platen rotation rate (0048 of Matsuo, rotational speed of the polishing table), a slurry dispense rate, a slurry composition, a number of substrates since the polishing pad was changed, or a measurement of the polishing pad surface texture of the polishing pad by a stand-alone metrology station before the polishing pad was installed on the platen (the prior art is not required to teach these limitations because the language recites the term “or”).
Regarding claim 4, Matsuo, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Matsuo, as modified, teaches wherein the controller is configured to at least one of halt a conditioning process (the prior art is not required to teach this limitation because the language recites the term “or”) or adjust a conditioning parameter based on the measurement of polishing pad surface texture (fig. 12a).
Regarding claim 5, Matsuo teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Matsuo does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured to operate as a machine learning based image processing system, and to input the image to the machine learning based image processing system.
However, Singh additionally teaches monitoring a CMP process, wherein the monitoring system operatively coupled to a controller which regulates the system selectively control a CMP device including a polishing pad, an optical wave guide); and an neural network may be trained, where a supervised learning may be preferred, and in this regard, training of a classifier may be done on a sufficient amount of training data covering many CMP process parameter degrees and operating conditions of the monitoring system, wherein a trained neural network may receive input data from the CMP monitoring system for detecting and diagnosing problems within the one or more CMP process parameters associated with the collected light data and generated signature, wherein the network includes one or more intermediate or hidden layers [Column 7, Line 66 - Column 8, Line 12 and Column 9, Line 60 - Column 10, Line 21, Column 12, Line 25 - Column 13, Line 16, and Fig. 1, 3-4, 9].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Matsuo, as modified, to incorporate the additional teachings of Singh to combine with the teachings of Matsuo, wherein Matsuo teaches the apparatus and the ability to determine the surface pad index according to the processing with the teachings of Singh wherein the parameters being determined would be that of the surface pad index by using a trained supervised learning neural network, wherein the network includes one or more intermediate or hidden layers. Specifically, it would have been obvious to allow the controller of Matsuo to utilize a trained supervised learning neural network in order to determine the index value, wherein the network includes one or more intermediate or hidden layers. Doing so would facilitate optimization of the CMP process (col. 3, lines 33-35 of Singh) and promote quality of the workpiece.
Regarding claim 6, Matsuo, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 5. Additionally, Matsuo, as modified, teaches wherein the machine learning based image processing system comprises a supervised learning module (see above rejection of claim 5, as incorporated from Singh).
Regarding claim 7, Matsuo, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 6. Additionally, Matsuo, as modified, teaches wherein the machine learning based image processing system comprises a dimensional reduction module to receive the image and output component values, and wherein the controller is configured to input the component values to the supervised learning module (see above rejection of claim 5, wherein the trained supervised learning neural network was incorporated from Singh, wherein the neural network receives an input image to output an index value, wherein receiving the image is interpreted as a dimensional reduction module which receives the image and outputs component values (of the image) to the neural network in order to output the index value. It is noted a dimensional reduction module is present but the claim does not explicitly state what the module actually does. Although the claims are read in light of the spec the spec is not read into the claims. Thus, the module can be considered a sort of preprocessing step prior to input in the supervised learning module. Examiner recommends the amendment to recite what the module has completed to the data.).
Regarding claim 8, Matsuo, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 6. Additionally, Matsuo, as modified, teaches wherein the controller is configured to input the image directly to the supervised learning module (see above rejection of claim 5, wherein the trained supervised learning neural network was incorporated from Singh, wherein the neural network receives an input image to output an index value, wherein the controller utilizes the neural network and inputs the image directly to the supervised learning module in order to receive an index value).
Regarding claim 9, Matsuo, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 6. Additionally, Matsuo, as modified, teaches wherein the controller is configured to operate the supervised learning module as an artificial neural network (see above rejection of claim 5, wherein the trained supervised learning neural network was incorporated from Singh, wherein the neural network receives an input image to output an index value, wherein the network includes one or more intermediate or hidden layers which this is the characteristics of the ANN).
Regarding claim 12, Matsuo teaches a method of polishing (fig. 1), comprising:
bringing a substrate into contact with a polishing pad on a platen pad (fig. 1, platen 1 and polishing pad 2 and substrate W; see annotated fig. 1 below);
PNG
media_image1.png
498
1019
media_image1.png
Greyscale
generating relative motion between the substrate and the polishing pad (fig. 1);
capturing an image of the polishing pad (figs. 1-3, [0052]) with an optical sensor (photodetector 35);
receiving other data, the other data including a value for a parameter (paragraph 0048, the controller receives other data relating to processing parameters); and
generating a measurement of surface texture of the polishing pad by inputting the image and the value of the parameter to a controller (fig. 12A; the controller determines a pad surface index [0056] (which is interpreted as generating a measure of polishing pad surface texture) which is based on the image from the photodetector 35 and also indirectly based on the processing parameters received by the controller. That is, the processing parameters affect the pad surface index, wherein Matsuo teaches adjusting the processing parameters according to the pad surface index (fig. 12A)); and
using the measurement of the surface texture of the polishing pad, adjust an operational polishing parameter (fig. 12A, [0122]; wherein the change of dressing conditions is interpreted as adjusting an operational polishing parameter).
Matsuo does not explicitly teach receive other data from a device that is not the optical sensor (Specifically, Matuso does not explicitly teach how the controller controls the rotational speed of the polishing table (as described in paragraph 0048));
and a machine learning based image processing system.
However, Singh teaches monitoring a CMP process, wherein the monitoring system operatively coupled to a controller which regulates the system selectively control a CMP device including a polishing pad, an optical wave guide); and an neural network may be trained, where a supervised learning may be preferred, and in this regard, training of a classifier may be done on a sufficient amount of training data covering many CMP process parameter degrees and operating conditions of the monitoring system, wherein a trained neural network may receive input data from the CMP monitoring system for detecting and diagnosing problems within the one or more CMP process parameters associated with the collected light data and generated signature, wherein the network includes one or more intermediate or hidden layers [Column 7, Line 66 - Column 8, Line 12 and Column 9, Line 60 - Column 10, Line 21, Column 12, Line 25 - Column 13, Line 16, and Fig. 1, 3-4, 9]. Additionally, Singh teaches sensors are included to detect parameters including the polishing speed (col. 12, lines 23-25).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Matsuo to incorporate the teachings of Singh to combine the teachings of Matsuo, wherein Matsuo teaches the apparatus and the ability to determine the surface pad index according to the processing with the teachings of Singh wherein the parameters being determined would be that of the surface pad index by using a trained supervised learning neural network, wherein the network includes one or more intermediate or hidden layers, and to provide wherein the controller receives other data from a device that is not the optical sensor. Specifically, it would have been obvious to allow the controller of Matsuo to utilize a trained supervised learning neural network in order to determine the index value, wherein the network includes one or more intermediate or hidden layers and to incorporate a sensor (as taught by Singh) for monitoring the rotational speed of the polishing table (as taught by Matsuo, [0048]), wherein the controller controls the parameter based on the sensor information. Incorporating the trained supervised learning neural network would facilitate optimization of the CMP process (col. 3, lines 33-35) and promote quality of the workpiece. Incorporating the sensor would allow Matsuo to function as intended and control the rotational speed of the polishing table [0048 of Matsuo], wherein incorporating the sensor provides means for the controller to monitor the rotational speed of the polishing table.
Regarding claim 13, Matsuo, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 12. Additionally, Matsuo, as modified, teaches wherein the parameter comprises a polishing control parameter [0048 of Matsuo, rotational speed of the polishing table] or a state parameter (the prior art is not required to teach this limitation because the language recites the term “or”).
Regarding claim 14, Matsuo, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 12. Additionally, Matsuo, as modified, teaches wherein the parameter comprises a platen rotation rate (0048 of Matsuo, rotational speed of the polishing table), a slurry dispense rate, a slurry composition, a number of substrates since the polishing pad was changed, or a measurement of the surface texture of the polishing pad by a stand-alone metrology station before the polishing pad was installed on the platen (the prior art is not required to teach these limitations because the language recites the term “or”).
Regarding claim 15, Matsuo, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 12. Additionally, Matsuo, as modified, teaches comprising receiving training data including a plurality of pairs of training images and training values, and training a supervised learning algorithm in the machine learning based image processing system using the training data (see above rejection of claim 12, wherein the trained supervised learning neural network was incorporated from Singh, wherein the neural network receives an input image to output an index value, wherein supervised learning module is trained on a sufficient amount of training data).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Matsuo, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 15. Additionally, Matsuo, as modified, teaches wherein the training values comprise surface texture values, wherein the training values comprise surface roughness values (see above rejection of claim 12, wherein the trained supervised learning neural network was incorporated from Singh, wherein the neural network receives an input image to output an index value, wherein supervised learning module is trained on a sufficient amount of training data which includes surface texture values and surface roughness values in the form of the index value as taught by Matsuo).
Regarding claim 18, Matsuo, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 12. Additionally, Matsuo, as modified, teaches comprising halting a conditioning process (the prior art is not required to teach this limitation because the language recites the term “or”) or adjusting a conditioning parameter based on the measurement of polishing pad surface texture (fig. 12a of Matsuo).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo et al. (US PGPUB 20140262027), hereinafter Matsuo, in view of Chen et al. (US PGPUB 20180297170), hereinafter Chen.
Regarding claim 10, Matsuo teaches an apparatus for chemical mechanical polishing (fig. 1), comprising:
a platen having a surface to support a polishing pad (fig. 1, platen 1 and polishing pad 2; see annotated fig. 1 below);
PNG
media_image1.png
498
1019
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a carrier head to hold a substrate against a polishing surface of the polishing pad (fig. 1, carrier 10 and substrate W);
a pad conditioner to press an abrasive body against the polishing surface (fig. 1, dresser 22 with dressing member 22a);
an in-situ polishing pad monitoring system including an imager (photodetector 35) disposed above the platen (fig. 1) to capture an image of the polishing pad (figs. 1-3, [0052]); and
a controller [0050] configured to receive the image from the in-situ polishing pad monitoring system [0050], receive other data including a value for a parameter (paragraph 0048, the controller receives other data relating to processing parameters), and to generate a measure of polishing pad surface texture based on the image and the value of the parameter (fig. 12A; the controller determines a pad surface index [0056] (which is interpreted as generating a measure of polishing pad surface texture) which is based on the image from the photodetector 35 and also indirectly based on the processing parameters received by the controller. That is, the processing parameters affect the pad surface index, wherein Matsuo teaches adjusting the processing parameters according to the pad surface index (fig. 12A)).
Matsuo does not explicitly teach
wherein the imager is movable over the platen to change a radial distance of the imager relative to a center of the platen;
the controller configured to control the radial distance of the imager relative to the center of the platen based on the image and the other data.
However, Chen teaches a CMP apparatus, wherein a surface condition scanner 128 for evaluating a surface condition and roughness [0025] is mounted to an arm 122 (fig. 2), wherein the arm provides arcuate movement across the pad in order to process the entire polishing surface of the pad [0024].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Matsuo to incorporate the teachings of Chen to provide wherein the imager is movable over the platen to change a radial distance of the imager relative to a center of the platen; the controller configured to control the radial distance of the imager relative to the center of the platen based on the image and the other data.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to mount the imager of Matsuo via the arcuately movable arm of Chen such that the imager is moveable over the platen to change a radial distance of the imager relative to a center of the platen, wherein the controller controls the imager to scan the entire polishing surface of the pad (0024 of Chen) by controlling the radial distance of the imager relative to the center of the platen, wherein the position is at least partially based on the image and the other data because the controller determines which section of the pad is still required to be scanned based on the already scanned images in order to scan across the entire pad profile. Doing so would allow the photodetector to be mounted and not floating in space which allows the device to work as intended. Additionally, doing so would allow the entire pad to be monitored which promotes increased quality of the workpiece.
Regarding claim 11, Matsuo, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 10. Additionally, Matsuo, as modified, teaches wherein the imager is mounted on a pivotable arm to swing laterally over the platen (see above rejection of claim 10, wherein the radially moveable arm of Chen was incorporated).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo et al. (US PGPUB 20140262027), hereinafter Matsuo, in view of Chen et al. (US PGPUB 20180297170), hereinafter Chen, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Singh et al. (US Patent 6594024), hereinafter Singh.
Regarding claim 19, Matsuo, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 10. Additionally, Matsuo, as modified, teaches wherein the controller is configured to: generate a measurement of surface texture of the polishing pad by inputting the image and the value of the parameter to the controller (fig. 12A; the controller determines a pad surface index [0056] (which is interpreted as generating a measure of polishing pad surface texture) which is based on the image from the photodetector 35 and also indirectly based on the processing parameters received by the controller. That is, the processing parameters affect the pad surface index, wherein Matsuo teaches adjusting the processing parameters according to the pad surface index (fig. 12A of Matsuo)); and using the measurement of the surface texture of the polishing pad, adjust an operational polishing parameter (fig. 12A, [0122] of Matsuo; wherein the change of dressing conditions is interpreted as adjusting an operational polishing parameter).
Matsuo, as modified, does not explicitly teach
wherein the controller is configured to operate as a machine learning based image processing system.
However, Singh teaches monitoring a CMP process, wherein the monitoring system operatively coupled to a controller which regulates the system selectively control a CMP device including a polishing pad, an optical wave guide); and an neural network may be trained, where a supervised learning may be preferred, and in this regard, training of a classifier may be done on a sufficient amount of training data covering many CMP process parameter degrees and operating conditions of the monitoring system, wherein a trained neural network may receive input data from the CMP monitoring system for detecting and diagnosing problems within the one or more CMP process parameters associated with the collected light data and generated signature, wherein the network includes one or more intermediate or hidden layers [Column 7, Line 66 - Column 8, Line 12 and Column 9, Line 60 - Column 10, Line 21, Column 12, Line 25 - Column 13, Line 16, and Fig. 1, 3-4, 9].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Matsuo, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Singh to combine the teachings of Matsuo, wherein Matsuo teaches the apparatus and the ability to determine the surface pad index according to the processing with the teachings of Singh wherein the parameters being determined would be that of the surface pad index by using a trained supervised learning neural network, wherein the network includes one or more intermediate or hidden layers. Specifically, it would have been obvious to allow the controller of Matsuo to utilize a trained supervised learning neural network in order to determine the index value, wherein the network includes one or more intermediate or hidden layers. Doing so would facilitate optimization of the CMP process (col. 3, lines 33-35) and promote quality of the workpiece.
Double Patenting
6. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 12, 15 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, and 13-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11731238 in view of Matsuo et al. (US PGPUB 20140262027), hereinafter Matsuo and further in view of Singh et al. (US Patent 6594024), hereinafter Singh.
Instant Application 18/209,064
US Patent 11731238
An apparatus for chemical mechanical polishing, comprising:
1. An apparatus for chemical mechanical polishing, comprising:
a platen having a surface to support a polishing pad;
a platen having a surface to support a polishing pad;
a carrier head to hold a substrate against a polishing surface of the polishing pad;
a carrier head to hold a substrate against a polishing surface of the polishing pad;
a pad conditioner to press an abrasive body against the polishing surface;
a pad conditioner to press an abrasive body against the polishing surface;
an in-situ polishing pad monitoring system including an imager disposed above the platen to capture an image of the polishing pad; and
an in-situ polishing pad monitoring system including an imager disposed above the platen to capture an image of the polishing pad, wherein the imager is configured to focus an imaging plane of the imager on the polishing surface of the polishing pad;
a controller configured to receive the image from the in-situ polishing pad monitoring system, to receive other data including a value for a parameter, and to generate a measure of polishing pad surface texture based on the image and the value of the parameter.
a controller configured to operate as a machine learning based image processing system trained by a plurality of pairs of training images and surface roughness training values, and to receive the image from the monitoring system and generate a measure of polishing pad surface roughness based on the image by inputting the image to the machine learning based image processing system and receiving the measure of polishing pad surface roughness as output.
5. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to operate as a machine learning based image processing system, and to input the image to the machine learning based image processing system.
a controller configured to operate as a machine learning based image processing system trained by a plurality of pairs of training images and surface roughness training values,
6. The apparatus of claim 5, wherein the machine learning based image processing system comprises a supervised learning module.
2. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the machine learning based image processing system comprises a supervised learning module
12. A method of polishing, comprising:
bringing a substrate into contact with a polishing pad on a platen;
13. A method of polishing, comprising: bringing a substrate into contact with a polishing surface of a polishing pad on a platen;
generating relative motion between the substrate and the polishing pad;
generating relative motion between the substrate and the polishing pad;
capturing an image of the polishing pad with an optical sensor;
capturing an image of the polishing pad with an optical sensor,
receiving other data including a value for a parameter; and
generating a measurement of surface texture of the polishing pad by inputting the image and the value of the parameter to a machine learning based image processing system.
generating a measurement of surface roughness of the polishing surface of the polishing pad by inputting the image to a machine learning based image processing system trained by a plurality of pairs of training images and surface roughness training values, and receiving the measurement of surface roughness of the polishing pad as output.
15. The method of claim 12, comprising receiving training data including a plurality of pairs of training images and training values, and training a supervised learning algorithm in the machine learning based image processing system using the training data.
14. The method of claim 13, comprising receiving training data including a plurality of pairs of training images and surface roughness training values, and training a supervised learning algorithm in the machine learning based image processing system using the training data.
18. The method of claim 12, comprising halting a conditioning process or adjusting a conditioning parameter based on the measure of polishing pad surface texture.
15. The method of claim 13, comprising generating an alert, halting a conditioning process or adjusting a conditioning parameter based on the measurement of polishing pad surface roughness.
Claims 1 and 13 of US Patent 11731238 does not explicitly teach
receiving other data from a device that is not the in-situ polishing pad monitoring system, the other data including a value for a parameter; and
generating a measurement of surface texture of the polishing pad by inputting the image and the value of the parameter, and
using the measurement of the polishing pad surface texture, adjusting an operational polishing parameter.
However, Matsuo teaches a CMP apparatus (fig. 1) comprising
a controller [0050] configured to receive the image from the monitoring system [0050], to receive other data including a value for a parameter (paragraph 0048, the controller receives other data relating to processing parameters), and to generate a measure of polishing pad surface texture based on the image and the value of the parameter (fig. 12A; the controller determines a pad surface index [0056] (which is interpreted as generating a measure of polishing pad surface texture) which is based on the image from the photodetector 35 and also indirectly based on the processing parameters received by the controller. That is, the processing parameters affect the pad surface index, wherein Matsuo teaches adjusting the processing parameters according to the pad surface index (fig. 12A)), and
using the measurement of the polishing pad surface texture, adjust an operational polishing parameter (fig. 12A, [0122]; wherein the change of dressing conditions is interpreted as adjusting an operational polishing parameter).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Claims 1 and 13 of US patent 11731238 to incorporate the teachings of Matsuo to provide receiving other data including a value for a parameter; and generating a measurement of surface texture of the polishing pad by inputting the image and the value of the parameter, and using the measurement of the polishing pad surface texture, adjust an operational polishing parameter. Doing so would promote quality of the workpiece by analyzing the polishing pad with respect to further inputs which allows the further inputs to be modified if desired.
Claims 1 and 13 of US Patent 11731238, as modified, does not explicitly teach
receiving other data from a device that is not the in-situ polishing pad monitoring system.
However, Singh teaches monitoring a CMP process, wherein the monitoring system is operatively coupled to a controller which regulates the system selectively control a CMP device including a polishing pad. Additionally, Singh teaches sensors are included to detect parameters including the polishing speed (col. 12, lines 23-25).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Claims 1 and 13 of US patent 11731238, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Singh to provide receiving other data from a device that is not the in-situ polishing pad monitoring system. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate a sensor (as taught by Singh) for monitoring the rotational speed of the polishing table (as taught by Matsuo, [0048]), wherein the controller controls the parameter based on the sensor information. Doing so would allow the device to function as intended and control the rotational speed of the polishing table [0048 of Matsuo], wherein incorporating the sensor provides means for the controller to monitor the rotational speed of the polishing table.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed 2/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 USC 101 rejections of claims 1 and 12, Applicant argues the amended language of using the measurement of the surface texture of the polishing pad, adjusting an operational polishing parameter integrates the steps into a practical application (pages 6-7 of Applicant’s remarks). The examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended language of “adjusting an operational polishing parameter” involves observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). That is, the BRI of “adjusting an operational polishing parameter” includes at least a judgment and evaluation. The language does not recite processing the workpiece through the incorporation of the adjusted parameter. For this reason, the 35 USC 101 rejections have been updated and maintained. See above rejection for more details.
The 35 USC 101 rejection of claim 10 has been withdrawn. See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues Matsuo fails to teach generating a measurement of the polishing pad surface texture based on the image and the value of the parameter, wherein the parameter is received from a device that is not the in-situ polishing pad monitoring system. Accordingly, Applicant argues claims 1, 12 and the respective dependents should be allowed (page 10 of Applicant’s remarks). The examiner respectfully disagrees. The measurement of the polishing pad surface texture is directly based on the image and indirectly based on the value of the parameter. That is, the value of the parameter affects the measurement of the polishing pad surface texture because the value of the parameter affects the measurement of the polishing pad. The claim language does not specifically recite how the generated measurement is based on the value of the parameter and only generically recites the concept. Additionally, Singh was relied upon to teach the language of “received from a device that is not the in-situ polishing pad monitoring system” by incorporating a sensor. Claims 1, 12 and the respective dependent claims have been rejected accordingly. See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues that Duescher fails to teach the amended language of claim 10. However, Duescher is no longer relied upon to teach the amended language of claim 10. Rather, Matsuo in view of Chen was relied upon to teach the amended language of claim 10. The dependent claims have been rejected accordingly. See above rejection for more details.
The double patenting rejections have been updated and maintained. See above rejection for more details.
Conclusion
8. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A GUMP whose telephone number is (571)272-2172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL A GUMP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights